Introduction

This file should eventually contain a list of all the known manuscripts from the eleven original caves excavated at Qumran and about which information is presently available. The list has been compiled from three readily available paperback sources 1, 2, 3. The other references most frequently cited here are from the serial work in progress Discoveries in the Judaean Desert (of Jordan) (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1955—), the individual numbers of which are designated herein as DJD I, DJD II, DJD III, etc.

The series numbers, names and official abbreviations assigned to the various manuscripts have been changed in the past and may be changed in the future. They remain under the control, primarily, of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the various editors selected to publish the official editions of the scholarly work on the scrolls. These definitive sources should be consulted by anyone working seriously in this field. This list is intended mostly to satisfy amateur scholars, like me, who are very curious but still have a lot to learn.

The state of preservation of the manuscripts varies from almost complete to almost non-existent. Many of the manuscripts are made up of more than one fragment. Once the fragments had been reassembled into manuscripts, each manuscript was given the series designation provided in this list. Some manuscripts consist of a single small fragment. Others contain nearly the entire text of the original. Many unclassified fragments remain unidentified; neither a part of one of the larger scrolls nor a part of any known text. These fragments were each assigned their own unique series designations.

(In general, the task has been to assemble smaller fragments into larger fragments wherever joins can be identified. The jigsaw puzzle aspect of the assembly ends when all the available joins have been identified. The assembled larger fragments have typically been collected together based on other evidence into larger manuscripts even when no common joins existed. Such evidence includes language, letter shapes, spacing between rows and columns, widths of the columns, the color of the scroll material, the nature of the damage to the scroll material, the nature of the text [especially if it is from a known text for which a more complete version exists, etc.] Some of this is straightforward and some of it is not. There is the chance that future scholarship will force a revision in some of these assignments, however, everyone seems to agree that the job done to date was done very thoroughly and with a high degree of care, skill and precision.)

Some of these manuscripts are copies of the same, or nearly the same text. Each manuscript copy received its own distinct series designation. But for many of these copies the same official abbreviations and/or names are often used. To distinguish among the copies, superscript letters are often used when referring to them by name.

Most of the early manuscripts and a high percentage of the Cave 4 manuscripts were not acquired through personal excavation by the official archaeological expeditions. They were purchased from the Bedouin who found them. The buyers were primarily the representatives of Jordan and Israel. This makes it impossible to assign specific fragments and documents to specific caves with complete confidence (chain of custody and provenance are undocumented). It is not even entirely certain that all manuscripts discovered by the Bedouin have been accounted for. Comments about the distribution of documents among the various caves and discussions of why certain manuscripts were stored in certain caves must include the implicit proviso that it is all subject to change should more data or manuscripts become available. (Note that finding a fragment of a purchased manuscript in one cave does not necessarily prove, only improves the likelihood, that the purchased manuscript was originally taken from that same cave.)

Initially, de Vaux and Milik divided the texts into biblical (included in the Hebrew Bible) and non-biblical categories before parsing them among the members of the editorial group. The following superscripts are used here to identify individual manuscripts in each category according to that original classification:

b Biblical Text

¤ Non-Biblical Text

The term "non-biblical" should not be understood as non-religious. Almost all the works in the Qumran library are religious in some sense. "Non-biblical" simply means not currently part of the accepted Jewish Canon. In other words, these are among the texts that did not make it into the Bible.

Over time the editors have occasionally chosen to renumber and rename certain of the manuscripts. This seems to have been due in part to their evolving understanding of how the fragments and manuscripts fit together. Furthermore, not all scholars who have studied the texts agree on how each of them should be reassembled from the available fragments. For these, and perhaps other, reasons, there are occasional missing numbers.

It is important to remember that these series designations are intended to refer to individual manuscripts. There are many techniques that can be used to determine if two fragments of one text are from the same or separate manuscripts. These include the color and texture of the parchment or papyrus on which it is written, and the handwriting, language and idiomatic usages of the scribe(s) who wrote it (them). It should be obvious that if even a single part of the two fragments overlap, then two separate manuscripts are, almost certainly, required. On the other hand, many fragments with no overlaps and no contiguous edges with the other fragments, have been assigned to specific larger documents. The techniques used in making these assignments are not infallible, and it is always possible that future scholarship and/or investigative techniques will require reassignment of some fragments.

Manuscripts or fragments, now numbered separately, may turn out to be parts of other numbered manuscripts. While most of the details of this jigsaw puzzle were worked out long ago, it is still possible that some of the unidentified individual fragments, currently carrying their own unique manuscript designations, may yet be identified and, possibly, incorporated into other manuscripts. This would possibly create additional gaps in the series numbering. It is also possible that a fragment now assigned to one document might turn out to be part of another copy of the same text or even part of an unrelated text. Such a fragment could, in the latter case, require its own new number.

The biblical and non-biblical texts are intermixed here in the order of their current numerical series designations. In general, the biblical manuscripts have lower numbers than the non-biblical manuscripts, but not always. I have, after the example of F. García Martínez, appended to the numerical series designation, the official abbreviation (in parentheses), and one or more commonly used titles. Manuscripts with non-numerical official designations (such as the first seven manuscripts) appear at the beginning of the list for the appropriate cave (Cave 1 for those first seven manuscripts).

Some famous or notorious manuscripts have become better known by their official abbreviations or one of the common names than by their numerical series designation. These I have also chosen to list at the beginning of the entries for the appropriate caves. Note that those entries appear again in their numerical sequence in the list of the cave’s manuscripts ONLY to refer you back to the beginning of the list. The intent is that each individual manuscript should have only one entry in the list. Putting well known named manuscripts at the beginning of each Cave’s list merely speeds up the process of checking on certain specific manuscript references.

In a few special cases, one manuscript consumes two numerical series designations. This occurred because parts of the manuscript ended up in Israel and part of it ended up in the Rockefeller Museum basement in East Jerusalem. Given the temper of the times and of some of the individuals involved, there was no way to reunite the separate parts. Today, it should be possible, but there are no signs that such reunions have actually occurred under the auspices of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Two non-Qumran manuscripts are also listed here because they are so closely related to the various copies of the Damascus Document (4Q D) discovered in Cave 4; fragments of this document have also been discovered in other caves at Qumran. These two non-Qumran manuscripts are copies of the Damascus Document discovered in the Cairo Genizah (the CD-A and CD-B documents). These manuscripts along with copies from Qumran Cave 4 are all listed together at the beginning of the Cave 4 list. Other fragments, presumably from separate copies, of the Damascus Document found in other caves are also listed at the beginning of the lists for their appropriate caves.

An original DJD reference, or an alternate reference, for each manuscript is usually provided, along with a brief description or identification of its contents, as currently understood. See F. García Martínez, R. Eisenman and M. Wise, and Geza Vermes for more complete sets of references and descriptions.

The biblical texts have not, so far as I know, ever been considered controversial. They were to a large extent translated and published early. They are of interest to many biblical scholars, not least because they offer insights into the evolution of Old Testament scriptures. Copying errors, misunderstandings, redactions, insertions (glosses), and biblical commentaries, among other effects, have all served to modify these texts over time. These changes are of undoubted interest to scholars whose research focuses the evolution of such biblical texts prior to the time they were edited into their final forms in the modern Christian and Jewish Canons. This work has a long history, and unlike scholars interested in the non-biblical texts, biblical scholars were not unduly hindered in their investigations of the Dead Sea Scrolls by the inactions of some of the original editors.

Until recently most of the non-biblical texts have been only partially published or not published at all. These texts are potentially more interesting than the biblical texts, in part, because they are among the lost religious texts of the intertestamental period. What is even more interesting, they were lost without leaving us any trace that they ever existed; at least, not until the late 1940’s. As the Damascus Document discoveries in the Cairo Genizah demonstrate, however, some of these may have been lost more recently than might be suspected. Still, it is always most interesting to stumble across the totally unexpected. The newly won availability of these texts now offers scholars an opportunity to start digging for the surprises.

English translations of most of the non-biblical texts from Qumran have recently become available in economical paperback editions suitable for general readership. The paperback edition containing the earliest widely available English translation(s) for individual scrolls is indicated using superscripts to provide the source and page numbers as follows:

(Originally published in Spanish as Textos de Qumrán (Madrid; Editorial Trotta SA, 1992). The first English language edition "with corrections and additions" was (Leiden; E. J. Brill, 1994). The first paperback edition of the English translation was published jointly in 1996 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.)

(This is the most extensive translation of the 270 most important non-biblical texts available into English. Its major shortcoming is the limited amount of discussion provided for the texts; although this is scheduled to be rectified in a companion volume due out soon, we are assured.)

(I have corrected a small number of typographical errors while examining specific entries from the otherwise excellent list of manuscripts provided at the end of this work. These have been primarily numerical errors in page or volume numbers and, occasionally, in the series number of a specific manuscript. I expect that these will be corrected in a later edition, but in the interim, the corrected entries are available here . These small errors do not detract in any way from the overall stunning impact of the translations themselves.)

(Translations in this volume are limited to a subset of 50 of the non-biblical texts from Cave 4. These texts have been reassembled independently, and in some cases, uniquely. In addition to the translations, this volume also includes discussions of all the translated texts. Multiple manuscripts were used by Professor Wise, whenever possible, to reconstruct as much of the original text as possible. There is no way, however, to be sure that all the separate manuscripts originally contained identical text. The composite published text may, therefore, differ in some respects from every one of the manuscript copies from which it was reconstructed. Professor Eisenman’s contention that the original scroll owners were early Christians is not widely accepted by most scroll scholars. This is not, however, a relevant issue for those who are only or mainly interested in the translations, themselves. Professor Wise conducted extensive research to reassemble as much of the original text as possible from the, sometimes numerous, manuscripts that include parts of the text he was trying to translate and analyze. This is an excellent introduction to the non-biblical scrolls for a non-specialist. Even Eisenman and Wise don’t agree on what they mean. That highlights, for me, that this is a healthy and vibrant area of continuing scholarly interest and investigation. Disagreement is what everyone expected once the texts became generally available to scholars.)

(Translations in this volume are limited to a subset of 70 of the non-biblical texts from several caves. The first edition of this volume goes back to 1962. It thus provided the first generally available translations from outside the official international editorial group.)

(It has a most instructive introductory section including a history of the entire scroll fiasco and interesting reportage about most of the principle players. It is not as forthcoming about Professor Vermes own role in most of that history, but other sources can be consulted for those details. It is worth having just for the introduction.)

(It also has some commentary about the texts that it covers, but this is hardly extensive. It includes seemingly all of the largest extant manuscripts and as such is a worthy acquisition. It is also interesting to compare, where possible, these translations with those of F. García Martínez. The later it should be remembered, were first translated into Spanish and then into English by Wilfred G. E, Watson. This might be expected to produce some interesting differences in the final texts.)

Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 1

N. Avigad and Y. Yadin, A Genesis Apocryphon. A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea (Magnes Press-Heikhal hasefer, Jerusalem 1956). Rewritten version of Genesis in Aramaic.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q ap Gen ar is one of the four acquired by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the archimandrite of the Syrian-Orthodox monastery of Saint Mark in Jerusalem. Mar Athanasius eventually sold (as late as 1954) all four of his manuscripts to Yigael Yadin, the son of Prof. E. L. Sukenik, acting through an intermediary, for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q H is one of the three acquired by Prof. E. L. Sukenik in 1947 for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q pHab is one of the four acquired by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the archimandrite of the Syrian-Orthodox monastery of Saint Mark in Jerusalem. Mar Athanasius eventually sold (as late as 1954) all four of his manuscripts to Yigael Yadin, the son of Prof. E. L. Sukenik, acting through an intermediary, for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

M. Burrows (ed.) with the assistance of J. C. Trever and W. H. Brownlee, The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. I, pls. I—LIV. Almost complete copy of Isaiah with some gaps along the bottom edge.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q Isa is one of the four acquired by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the archimandrite of the Syrian-Orthodox monastery of Saint Mark in Jerusalem. Mar Athanasius eventually sold (as late as 1954) all four of his manuscripts to Yigael Yadin, the son of Prof. E. L. Sukenic, acting through an intermediary, for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q Isb is one of the three acquired by Prof. E. L. Sukenik in 1947 for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

1Q M 1Q War Scroll¤,1 [95—115]

E. L. Sukenik, The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University, pp. 1—19, pls. 16—34.47. Rule of the War of the Children of Light Against the Children of Darkness.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q M is one of the three acquired by Prof. E. L. Sukenik in 1947 for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

1Q 33 (1Q M) 1Q War Scroll¤,1 [113—115]

J. T. Milik, DJD I, 135—136, pl. XXXI. Two fragments of the above listed MS of the War Scroll, 1Q M published by Sukenik. These two fragments retain a separate identity only because they were discovered by separate groups and stored separately for five decades and have not, yet, been physically reunited with the larger part of the manuscript.

1Q S (1Q S and rarely, if ever, 1Q 28) 1Q Rule of the Community, Community Rule, The ‘Son of God’ Text, and, occasionally still, The Manual of Discipline¤,1 [3—19]

Published in M. Burrows (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, (The American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven 1950), vol. II/2, (Manual of Discipline = 1Q S). There is no II/1.

This manuscript contains a description of a sectarian group whose beliefs and practices resembled those of an ancient pacifist sect known as the Essenes, as noted by Eliezer Sukenik of Hebrew University in 1948. When this cave was reexplored in 1949 fragments of many other scrolls were found including what seemed to be an appendage to this same Essene-like work. In the first century CE Pliny the Elder located a group of Essenes on the western shore of the Dead Sea somewhere above En Gedi. This congruence, along with the seemingly obvious connection between the pottery found in the caves and in the nearby ruins, are what first lead de Vaux to preopose the hypothesis that the entire library and Qumran itself were products of the Essenes.

One of the original group of seven manuscripts retrieved by the Tac âmireh. 1Q S is one of the four acquired by Athanasius Yeshue Samuel, the Archimandrite of the Syrian-Orthodox monastery of Saint Mark in Jerusalem. Mar Athanasius eventually sold (as late as 1954) all four of his manuscripts to Yigael Yadin, the son of Prof. E. L. Sukenic, acting through an intermediary, for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. All seven of the original manuscripts eventually ended up in the special museum built for them in Jerusalem: The Shrine of the Book.

1Q Sa and 1Q Sb (1Q Sa, 1Q Sb and rarely, if ever, 1Q 28a and 1Q 28b) 1Q Rule of the Community, Community Rule, The secterian Rule of the Community, The ‘Son of God’ Text, and, occasionally still, The Manual of Discipline¤,1 [3—19]

Adjuncts to the Rule of the Community (1Q S), published in DJD I as 1Q 28a and 1Q 28b.

M. Burrows (ed.), The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery, vol. II, fasc. 2: The Manual of Discipline (The American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven 1951). Community Rule, cols I—XI. 1Q 28a and 1Q 28b are usually assumed to be appendices to 1Q S. They were discovered during subsequent digs in cave 1 conducted by Lankester Harding and Roland De Vaux several years after the first seven manuscripts were discovered there. By that time the cave had obviously been ‘excavated’ both by the bedouin and by the monks of Syrian monastery of St Mark, or their agents.

D. Barthélemy, DJD I, 51—54, pls. VIII—IX. Barthélemy accepts the possibility that these fragments are parts of three or four separate MSS, to which fragments 1—15, 16—21, 22—23, and 24 respectively belong. M. D. McLean, The Use and Development of Palaeo-Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman Period (Thesis, Harvard 1982), 41—42, distinguishes three separate MSS:

D. Barthélemy, DJD I, 66—68, pl. XII. Part of the 1Q Isb manuscript of Isaiah, published by Sukenik, 1Q Isaiahb. These separate parts of the same manuscript retain a separate identities only because they were discovered by separate groups and stored separately for five decades and have not, yet, been physically reunited into one large manuscript.

J. T. Milik, DJD I, 87—91, pl. XVII. Remains of an Aramaic work related to the Aramaic Testament of Levi from the Cairo Genizah, and to the Greek Testament of Levi, which forms part of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

M. Baillet, DJD III, 95, pl. XVIII. Remains of a copy of Lamentations with the divine name written in palaeo-Hebrew characters.

3Q 4 (3Q pIsa) 3Q Isaiah Pesher¤,1 [185]

M. Baillet, DJD III, 95—96, pl. XVIII. Remains of a pesher on Isaiah.

3Q 5 (3Q Jub) 3Q Jubilees¤,1 [244]

M. Baillet, DJD III, 96—98, pl. XVIII. Three of the seven fragments in this manuscript, originally published as an ‘Apocryphal prophecy’, have been identified as a copy of Jubilees.

3Q 6 3Q Hymn¤,1 [401]

M. Baillet, DJD III, 98, pl. XVIII. Hymn of praise.

3Q 7 (3Q T Juda?) 3Q Testament of Judah(?)¤,1 [265]

M. Baillet, DJD III, 99, pl. XVIII. Later identified by J. T. Milik as a Hebrew version of the Aramaic Testament of Judah, it was originally published as ‘Apocryphon which mentions the angel of the presence’.

J. R. Davila, DJD XII, 61—62, pl. XII. A fragment with remains of Gn 1:8-10. The siglum 4Q Genh has been adopted for four different manuscripts related to the book of Genesis, each of which is preserved in only one small fragment.

x fragments in cryptic script (mixes a few words written in Greek and palaeo-Hebrew alphabets with those in ordinary square Hebrew in mirror writing; not the same code as that used in 4Q 298)

4Q 1962

Aramaic Tobit — 1 fragment —

4Q 213—2142

Aramaic Testament of Levi — 2 manuscripts in 6 fragments —

4Q 2152

Testament of Naphtali — 1 fragment —

4Q 2272

Pseudo-Jubilees — 2 fragments —

4Q 243—2452

Pseudo-Daniel — 1 fragment —

4Q 2462

The Son of God — 1 fragment — This fragment was acquired through Kando in 1958. Even though it has never been published, the contents of this scroll fragment have become known along with the rest of the scrolls in recent years. It appears to record the first instances of certain phrases thought to be unique to the Hellenistic New Testament writings originating outside Palestine. From this lone document, we now know that these phrases are part of Christianity’s original Jewish heritage. The specific phrases are Son of God, Most High and Son of the Most High. Despite the obvious importance of this text to both Jewish and Christian biblical scholars, J. T. Milik has still not published this text which was originally assigned to him.

4Q 251 — Halakhah A2

A Pleasing Fragrance — 7 fragments —

4Q 2522

A Genesis Florilegium — 1 fragment —

4Q 266 — The End of the Damascus Document: An Excommunication Text2

The Foundations of Righteousness — 1 fragment —

4Q 274 — Purity Laws Type A2

Mourning, Seminal Emissions, etc. — 3 fragments —

4Q 276—277 — Purity Laws Type B2

Laws of the Red Heifer — 2 manuscripts in 2 fragments —

4Q 285 — Nasi2

The Messianic Leader — 7 fragments —

Previous Discussion: None.

4Q 286—2872

The Chariots of Glory — 2 manuscripts in 6 fragments —

4Q 2982

Admonitions to the Sons of Dawn — 1 fragment in code (uses 23 more or less arbitrary symbols in a simple substitution code plus one null character, possibly a syntactic symbol that has no correspondence in Hebrew; not the same code as that used in 4Q 186) —

Manuscripts from Qumran Cave 7

All the manuscripts recovered from this cave are in Greek and, until recently, were thought to be exclusively biblical compositions. There has been some conjecture that they were New Testament texts, however this seems so unlikely that it requires extraordinary supporting evidence to be taken seriously. The best recent evidence suggests something quite different.

Recent work by Ernest A. Muro, Jr. and Emile Puech identify certain of these Cave 7 fragments as parts of the Book of Enoch. Mr. Muro’s web site provides copies of these fragments, an introduction to the fragments from this cave, the complete text of his December 1997 article in Revue de Qumran, and a summary of the related article by Fr. Puech in the same issue. Their analyses cover fragments 4, 8, and 11—14.

M. Baillet, DJD III, 143—144, pl. XXX. Unidentified Greek manuscripts. Many of these have been ascribed to various biblical texts, however, the various authors are not always in agreement as to which fragment goes with which biblical text.

This is the scroll found under the tile floor of Kando’s house and confiscated by the Israeli army after they gained control the the West Bank following the Six Day War. Yadin had been negotiating with Kando for this scroll before the war without success. Eventually, the Israeli government paid Kando a total of $105,000 after negotiations lasting almost a year. The highest asking price prior to the war was $750,000.

Additional fragments were stored by Kando in a cigar box. Later it was learned that some additional fragments were stored behind family pictures in Kando’s home and that of his brother. All this material, along with one fragment given to Yadin during the earlier negotiations, constitute the Temple Scroll listed under this number and 11Q 20 (11Q Templeb) 11Q Temple Scrollb, 11Q Torah. As far as I can tell none of it was recovered from Cave 11 directly by trained archaeologists.

The scroll contains major portions of the Pentateuch, but it is frequently written in the first person. The same is true of the supplementary laws in the Temple Scroll that are not in the Pentateuch. Most interestingly, this Torah contains detailed plans for the Jerusalem Temple construction which are notably missing from the Pentateuch, though referred to indirectly in I Chronicles 28:11-19. Nearly half of the Temple Scroll is taken up with the plans for the Temple, sacrifices, and laws of the city of the Temple.

Yadin doubts that this is the actual missing scroll. When he named it the Temple Scroll, he was thinking rather that it may reflect knowledge of and an attempt to preserve an earlier tradition known to the author.

Another part of the Temple Scroll contains the so-called Statutes of the King. The original text was traditionally written by Samuel and laid before the King. No record of what Samuel wrote survives in the Torah. But it is referred to in Deuteronomy 17:15-20 and in I Samuel 8:11 ff.

For these and other reasons, Yadin concludes that this scroll was, for the Essenes (his term), a holy canonical book on a par with the other holy books of the Bible.

Yadin relates an interesting correspondence between the statues in the Temple Scroll and the known behavior of the Jerusalem Essenes as related by Josephus, who actually lived with a group of wilderness Essenes for a time as a young man. This concerns the laws on defecation. The law requires that the latrines be built 3000 cubits from the camps. Since the Essenes, the Temple Scroll, and the War Scroll considered the entire city of Jerusalem a camp, the toilets were outside the city by nearly a mile. Since 3000 cubits exceeds the distance allowed for walking on the Sabbath, the Essenes were not allowed to relieve themselves on the Sabbath. Josephus reports observing this behavior during his stay with the Essenes. Yadin notes that Josephus also refers to an Essene Gate, mentioned nowhere else, which may have been the one used by the Essenes when they left the city to relieve themselves. The Temple Scroll describes the building of public toilets northwest of the city. This reference provides a good clue to the location of the Essene Gate. Josephus mentions that near the Essene Gate was a place called Betsoe, which Yadin says is obviously Beth-Soah in Hebrew, i.e., a lavatory.

11Q 20 (11Q Templeb) 11Q Temple Scrollb, 11Q Torah¤,1 [179—184]

Fragmentary remains of the Temple Scroll. It is not clear to me if these are the fragments subsequently discovered behind the family pictures in the homes of Kando and his brother or fragments found under Jordanian auspices and initially stored in the Palestine Archaeological Museum under the control of Roland de Vaux.